The only problem is the miracle technology never appears and a lot of people lose their investments.

Such as these Silicon Valley Wyle E. Coyotes who think that technology is magic, and all we have to do is throw some of the same magic technology dust that drove the silicon boom at energy and transportation, and magic money making windmill-and-unicorn powered hydrogen sucking groovymobiles will make them all rich and green.

Moore’s law does not apply here. These Silicon Valley VC types will learn that lesson, either the easy way, or the hard way.

It may be that a noticable percentage of people will be driving electric in the next few years but I’d be surprised if any of the cars people will want are ZAPs (the ZAP Zebra is a piece of crap golf cart).

Of course, microturbines qualify as internal combustion. There’s yet another evolutionary path (as part of a hybrid train) that gets very little press (because it’s not as environmentally sexy as electrochemical). And unlike a lot of that “just around the corner” stuff, we basically know how to do that now.

ZAP doesn’t build electric cars. They buy them from China and they have very very poor build quality. They are a three wheeler to avoid automotive safety regulations. Some say Zap is more of a stock scheme than a car company.

Nano may, as I said earlier, help us make better electrodes, and thus may provide some supporting role in better batteries and fuel cells. But it’s still way too embryonic (actually it’s in the technological zygote phase) to say for sure, and how much it will help, and by when.

Bottom line: sit down, shut up, wait, and see what develops. The future never does what the futurists predict. Where’s my flying car?

Ditto for solar, btw.

We need CLEAN power for vehicles. Electric generation produces CO2, particulate, or radioactive byproducts.

Clearly, we need autos to be propelled by SAILS.
Wind power is the answer today, just like was for thousands of years for sea transport.

I hate to point this out but you’ve got your apples and oranges in the same sack. The improvements in computers and electronics were anticipated – the theoretical path to where we are now was well mapped long ago. It was then and still is a practical problem in applied chemistry and lithography. A long time ago Seymour Cray built the first “super computers”. They didn’t involve new semi-conductor technology but rather an advance in mechanical engineering. He shortened the connection paths with a new geometry and came up with an innovative way to cool the machines. Right now the major roadblock to faster, more compact semiconductor devices is cooling them.

Where the apples and oranges thing comes in is that with automobiles where dealing with the laws of physics. I won’t try to get into a long explanation but rather point to a couple of examples. The B-52 strategic bomber entered service in the 1950′s. It is anticipated that the fleet will remain in service until 2050. Think about it. We spend an enormous amount of money on new military technology yet a bomber that entered service 60 years ago will be the best thing in the air for its mission for 100 years.

The highest performance aircraft in the world, the SR-71, entered service in 1964 – 45 years ago.

The point is that we understand thermodynamics, chemistry and metallurgy well enough to know the limits of our capabilities. All of the proposed new technologies – electric, hydrogen, solar, wind – look good in power point but fall apart quickly when you get out the trusty slide rule.

btw, I was programming in about my 4th computer language about the time you were born.

Roy